Electric vehicles and nuclear power
Fueled by nuclear power?Recently I asked the question, Are plug-in hybrids code for nuclear power? With numerous folks on the right supporting plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, I cannot help but think that some are using the move to electric autos as a ploy for more nuclear power.
Yesterday, during the GMnext event, a reporter asked Gary Smyth, Director of Powertrain Systems Research Laboratory, about the electricity needed to 'electrify' automobiles and whether nuclear power would play a role.
"As such, we do see nuclear power potentially playing a role as an energy resource used to produce a fuel for a vehicle," responded Smyth.
At the LA Auto Show, Bob Lutz expressed the same sentiment to me when I asked him if a Chevy Volt fuel cell vehicle made more sense than a plug-in Volt because of America's over-dependence on coal-generated electricity. In fact, Lutz made it obvious that he believes that nuclear power is key to America's future.
I'm not sure where I stand on nuclear power, but I'm skeptical. I wonder, however, do most plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle fans support nuclear power?
posted by Dahcredyns at
11:31 AM
13 Comments:
I don't see a need for increased electrical generation with PHEV's as most will be recharged at night. For every PHEV sold we should also have a solar recharge kit available. Solar PV Carports are another option. Talk of the increased need for nuclear power is simply propaganda from the utilities to maintain control of our energy needs. They know we can put solar on our roofs. They also know we can't put a nuclear plant in our backyard. Still a non-believer? Then explain why Southern Company just spent $7.6 million to have solar and wind initiatives stripped from the Energy Bill?? The "Old Boy Network" still rules America.
Ron in Florida
The Chevy Volt is expected to draw 240 watt hours per mile - or stated another way, about 1 kwh per 4 miles.
An EV car with a 200 mile range would therefore need a minimum battery capacity of 2400 watt-hours x 200 miles or 48,000 watt-hours or to simply 48 kwh.
A typical home solar PV system runs 2 khw per hour of solar insolence and the PV system, installed, might cost $16,000 to $25,000 before tax credits, if any. (Whether your costs are subsidized or not, it still costs someone that much).
Assuming you live in a sunny climate, you might get 6 to 8 hours of full charge during peak months. (Where I live, I average about 2 hours of solar insolence in winter and 4+ in summer). Going with the upper bound numbers (6 to 8 hours) that is up to 16 kwh per day during the good times of the year. At 90% recharge efficiency, that's 14.4 kwh of useful battery charge.
Let's look at this a little differently. Let's assume the vehicle is driven 50 miles per day or drawing 12 kwh out of the EV battery. During the sunny part of the year (if you have sun then), your 2 kwh PV installation can charge your PV - but not power anything in your house.
A 2 kwh solar PV installation is typical - and assumes aggressive energy conservation in the home. The average home uses about 24 kwh of power each day, for example.
Assuming you have adequate sun lit roof space or yard space, you would likely need to install 4 to 6 kwh worth of solar PV ($50k plus) to provide 50 miles per day.
We can make many assumptions about usage scenarios, daily miles driven, technology improvements, cost reductions - but we remain a long ways from seeing a model that would make sense for solar PV charged EVs for most people. If, like me, you live in a northern State, you can double or triple the investment ($100k to $150k+) in the PV system due to the much lower level of solar inflows. Solar PV is not yet a panacea. EV cars require an enormous amount of electricity - comparable to the daily needs of a house.
Solar PV may be a solution for some people in certain usage scenarios. It does not seem to be a general solution. Charging vehicles overnight from otherwise unused grid generation probably makes more sense.
Background: Years ago, I installed a 300 watt-hour solar PV installation at my home and monitored usage for years to best understand the trade offs. Investing in energy reduction made a lot more sense than solar PV production.
Nuclear is likely the only way that our society can hope to achieve the necessary energy given our disdain for conservation. Even if hydrogen were safe and feasible, it would require LOTS of electricity to make. I like clean solar, wind, and hydro electricity, but it's very low yield given our penchant for speed and distance with personal vehicles and the variety of climates comprising our market.
Look for the book "The Long Emergency" for a heavier dose of skepticism.
I was reading the other day that power outages in the US cost industry between $12 billion and $26 billion per year, and that amount is expected to skyrocket as we head into the digital age.
It seems PHEVs would only increase this problem. Perhaps V2g technology could enforce "only-at-night" charging, but such a reality seems far-fetched.
Still, both the need for V2G and electric outages demonstrate the reality that our current electric grid is in poor shape, and will probably needed massive investment in the future, even without PHEVS. PHEVS will simply increase the need for both a new grid and new sources of electric energy, which is why I think utilities and some in the government our becoming more interested in PHEVs - they demand massive utility investment.
While I would love to see PHEVs powered by solar, it seems such a scenario will be a niche solution for several more decades, minimally, without an EXTREMELY bold government intervention - which I doubt is possible.
Nuclear power worries me and I think that America could find an intelligent way of achieving energy independence without nuclear power, but I don't think America - as consumers, as a government, as industry etc. - acts intelligently regarding energy. Thus, we're screwed.
I fear America will be forced to accept either nuclear power or third world status in the very near future.
Nuclear power to recharge plug-ins will be in use in other countries WAY before it happens in this backwards-ass country we call the USA. It's no wonder the US doesn't want Iran to use Nuclear power...WHY?
Because Iranians are some of the smartest people on the planet with a crapload of scholars with all sorts of high education and educational standards that make US schools look like Lolita camps.
Nuclear power for Iran means it'll shut down oil production in the long run. The US is so addicted to oil and so behind in technological development energy-wise compared to other countries that we have no other choice to invade Iran and make sure they keep giving us oil.
We are a truly pathetic bunch of people.
nozferatu-
Umm. We already use nuclear power in this country. However, after things like 3 Mile Island, most people in the US no longer wanted a nuclear facility in their backyard. The US has had the technology that Iran is now developing for decades.
Moreover, the US builds warships that can exist for years without going to port using nuclear reactors, so the idea that the US doesn't have the technology is pretty absurd.
And I'm sorry, but much of the rest of your post sounds almost like racism.
Dahcredyns -
Ummm...yeah...alot of good it does that warships use nuclear power but we don't have that technology to power our homes...yeah that's great.
So is it absurd? Let me know when your lightbulb is lit by nuclear energy, then we'll talk about how absurd it is.
Pay a visit to Switzerland or France and see how those countries use nuclear power for their populous...not their military.
The only people who think the US is ahead of the game are people who, in general, haven't stepped foot outside of the country or who have and are so blinded by nationalist flag waving that they can't see how far other places are ahead in many many areas...public transport, alternative energy, infrastructures, variety of automobiles, on and on and on.
And racism? Why? Which part? About what? You know...I can't stand the racism card people pull for no other reason than to try to silence people...it really is rather pathetic.
Again, there are many homes in the US powered by nuclear power. PERIOD.
The battle isn't over technology, the US has had the technology for decades. It's the belief that nuclear technology isn't safe. That the problems of nuclear waste outweigh the benefits. That nuclear waste could be used for dirty bombs, etc. That a natural disaster could damage a reactor to the point of another Chernobyl despite the best safeguards, etc.
Also, I didn't call you racist, however, by inference you implied that Iranians were smart and Americans were not.
Most Americans think Iranians are stupid...so you tell me who are the bigger racists?
Americans think Middle Easterners are so stupid, in fact, that they deserve to be bombed and taken over. That is the general mentality by and far.
Using Chernobyl as a standard safety rating for nuclear power sites is absurd.
The US has had the technology? Then how come other countries such as France and Switzerland can do it safely but the Americans can't?
I'm sorry. Having nuclear technology to drop bombs on innocent civilians (TWICE NO LESS...the world's biggest crime no one ever acknowledges) does NOT equate to having safe nuclear power technology.
There are nuclear power plants in the US that provide electricity to US homes and business that have been in service for DECADES.
The US stopped building nuclear plants AFTER 3 Mile Island because environmentalists convinced Americans, rightly or wrongly, that the safety of nuclear power could not be guaranteed.
Your assertion that the US only has military nuclear technology is just wrong. I used to live about 10 miles from a nuclear power plant.
If you don't believe me do some research.
"Americans think Middle Easterners are so stupid, in fact, that they deserve to be bombed and taken over."
That's not a racist statement?
Two of my very best friends are Persians that were both born in Iran. I take great offense towards your statement.
Many Americans are ignorant and racist towards Iranians and other peoples of the world. Many are not.
Many Iranians are ignorant and racist towards Americans and otehr peoples of the world. Many are not.
I am sorry you take offense but that is the truth. You may have friends who are from there BUT I AM from there.
The difference between American and Iranian mentality is that in general, Iranians who do not like Americans do so because of what the US has done, is doing, and is going to do over there...people there are FED UP of how the US destroys people's lives...they are FED UP. They are FED UP of the one biased, anti-Arab, pro-Israeli stance as well.
Americans who do not like Iranians do so because they are, in general, quite ignorant, arrogant, and sel-righteous about themselves and the "rights" they feel they have to impose on other cultures all over the world. The Iranians have done nothing to Americans...I can't say the same for Americans having done nothing to Iranians...let alone the rest of the world.
It's great to know that nuclear power exists here...but what affect does it have? Close no nothing. It touches very few lives and doesn't add in anyway to the energy solution due to its almost nonexistent usage in this country.
It needs to be used in far more frequency to add any benefit whatsoever to this country's energy problems.
The American ignorance of the Arab world, of the larger Muslim world, is no doubt great and pervasive. Still, there are many, many Americans that are disappointed with America's foreign policy on many issues. That are disappointed with America's energy policy.
America needs to change and that's why I advocate something like the Volt, because it is the direction that American automakers MUST take. If they don't, they won't survive. So, I'll remain optimistic and hopefull that the tide of change towards such technologies can keep flowing.
Anyway, I'm still not sure I agree with you regarding nuclear power.
Nuclear power has advanced significantly in terms of safety, nuclear waste, etc. in the last few decades, but I'm still not fully convinced that unforeseen dangers aren't looming, especially if climate change causes the world to change as much as some predict.
In an ideal world I'd like see a Hydrogen Economy powered by renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power.
Not long ago I read about a country in the Persian Gulf that is trying to position itself for a solar revolution claiming that the country received enough solar radition in a year to power the world many times over. That's the world I want to live in, a world powered by unlimited, clean and green energy.
I'm behind nuclear 100%. Look into what France has done with nuclear power, they have some of Europe's cleanest air. Also modern nuclear reactor designs virtually eliminate the chance of a meltdown (google pebble bed reactor). As far as the waste goes Yucca Mountain is already outdated even if unfinished at this point but the concept of burying the waste below the water table several miles down is sound. Wind and solar are great too to the extent they can be deployed in areas where they are dependable. But for those times when the sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow, nukes over coal any day.
Post a Comment
<< Home